POSTSCRIPT. a Since the above was written, I have read a continuation of the address by "A Layman of the Episcopal Church." I repeat the assurance that the word BY is not included by me in the quotation of the Apostle's words to Timothy, that the passage is not in " mutilated state," and that it was far from my thoughts to substitute BY for WITH. This would defeat my own purpose, when I come to explain the text. Upon this, and another in the second Epistle to Timothy, taken in connection with other parts of scripture, I am willing that the whole controversy should rest. I hope to give a more natural and just interpretation of them than he has given. I wish he had spared the following words: "I feel strongly disposed to suspect weakness in a cause, when I find such expedients employed to defend it." I forbear any retort. If he be the person I suppose him, I love him too much readily to believe that he can be otherwise than ingenuous. I wish the Episcopal Church had many laymen and preachers of his talents and virtues. A great deal of what he says, is, no doubt, true; but it is not properly applied, and does not support his cause. All that is necessary by way of reply, will be found in the course of my numbers, without a particular reference to him. Let me add farther, that the reader will certainly justify much greater severity than what I shall use. The provocation given to non-episcopalians has been wanton and great. There can be no ob jection against the Episcopalians managing their own affairs in their own way. Had they not treated other churches with indignity and insult had they maintained their Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, and plead divine authority,* and not charged others with the sin of schism, and as having neither Ministers nor ordinances, I had never written a word on the subject. I wish them more humility and charity, as being the way to greater prosperity. Jewish Church, during their forty years sojourning in the wilderness, we shall find that none of them were circumcised in all that space of time. Though the uncircumcised were, by God's own appointment, to be cut off from among his people, yet the ministry of those priests and scribes who were born in the term of those forty years, was not annulled and made void for their want of circumcision; which, doubtless, was as much necessary to qualify them for holy orders, as baptism is now to qualify our Christian Priests." Ed. * How strangely inconsistent is this gentleman! Though he here allows Episcopalians to plead "divine authority" for their order of Bishops; yet the moment they attempt to exercise the right which he grants them, to inculcate their principles, and to act upon them by ordaining those who have not been episcopally ordained, they are considered as treating other churches with indignity and insult." Though he here allows Episcopalians to plead "divine authority" for Episcopacy; yet, at the close of his twenty-third number, he warmly censures them for offering this plea. This is his language in that number. "I have no objection to their preferring Episcopal ordination, provided that they will cease to assert it on divine right; for I think that this is untenable, offensive to their fellow Christians of other denominations, and injurious to themselves." This author frequently accuses the advocates of Episcopacy of having written incautiously and with precipitancy. He certainly affords many specimens of the care and consideration with which he has composed his Miscellanies. Ed. For the Albany Centinel. THE LAYMAN. No. II. It was my wish to have said nothing more on the subject of Ec clesiastical Government. The circumstance, however, which led me to take up my pen continues to exist: I still feel it a duty to correct such views of the Church, as appear to me to be inaccurate; and to endeavour to prevent any improper impression which they may have a tendency to make on the public mind. The cause of religion has been deeply injured by the angry contests of its professors. If the friends of Christianity are occasionally involved in controversy, let not a spirit of bitterness in the management of it give reason of triumph to their foes. The professions which I have made, of regard for the writer whom I oppose, are sincerc. I have long been in the habit of admiring his talents, and revering his virtues. If I have said any thing that has wounded his feelings, or that may have appeared to him not perfectly consistent with delicacy, I entreat him to ascribe it to zeal in the support of a cause which I deem important; to any thing, rather than a want of that esteem and respect for his character which it is equally my happiness to feel and to express. When individuals or bodies of men get engaged in controversy, nothing is more common, or more natural, than for each to think the injury inflicted solely by the other, and to indulge his feelings, excited and nourished by this partial view of things to which the human mind is so prone. When, therefore, I observe expressions in the numbers of this writer, which appear to me to be exceptionable, I recollect this quality in man, and find no difficulty in ascribing to honest zeal what, upon a more narrow view, I might consider as involving a departure from Christian charity. Let me entreat him to cherish a similar disposition towards the Episcopal Church. I sincerely believe she has never given the other denominations of Christians just cause of offence; and, I even indulge the hope, that a dispassionate examination of the works against which he objects, will present them to his view in a point of light very different from that in which he has been accustomed to consider them. Upon this part of the subject I now enter; begging leave, however, to take notice, in the first place, of a passage in the tenth number of the Miscellanies, which appears to me to call for some animadversion. "The Apostle Peter, from whom the Romish and the Protestant Episcopal Church pretend to have derived their authority.” When did the Protestant Episcopal Church profess to derive her power from the Apostle Peter? Has she not invariably and strenuously opposed that imaginary distinction among the Apostles, upon which the Church of Rome founded her usurped supremacy? Papacy and Episcopacy are as inconsistent as are Episcopacy and Parity. The Papists have departed on the one side; the Presbyterians on the other. The supremacy of the Pope is supported by representing him as the successor of St. Peter, and by representing St. Peter as the Prince of the Apostles. The passage of scripture relied upon for this, is that which contains the promise of the keys; but, it has been thoroughly explained, by some of the ablest writers of our Church, as being a mere promise, not actually delegating any power at the time, but fulfilled, when our Saviour said to his Apostles, "As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained." This last declaration was made to no one particularly, but to all generally. It placed the Apostles upon a perfect level with respect to each other. Beside, the whole history of the primitive Church bears equal testimony against the Papal supremacy and the Presbyterian parity. This reasoning is used by the writers of our Church. It will be found, if names are necessary to be mentioned, in Chillingworth and Barrow. I cite these particularly, because they have urged it with peculiar force. No, the Protestant Episcopal Church waged open war with all the false doctrines, and all the corruptions of Popery. It is indeed strange, that such a charge should be brought against a Church so highly admired by the first reformers; a Church reformed by CRANMER and RIDLEY, and cemented with their blood. Our Church, then, professes to derive her power from Christ, through the medium of the Apostles in general; not through that of any one of them in particular. She rejects, utterly, the distinc tion for which the Papists contend; and, along with it, the senseless jargon of supremacy and infallibility with which the Romish Church so long insulted the world. Episcopacy, indeed, she retained, because she considered it as a divine institution; and, on this point, was most cordially congratulated by Calvin, Beza, and other illus. trious reformers of the time. They prayed earnestly to God that it might be preserved in the Church of England; lamenting the necessity of their situation, which precluded them from it, as the greatest of their misfortunes. Strange that the ardent admirers of these men should condemn, as “ corrupt and injurious," an institution which they viewed with so favourable an eye! Calvin declared, in strong terms, that he opposed not the Episcopal Hierarchy, but only the Papal, which, aspiring to an universal' supremacy, in the See of Rome, over the whole Christian world, usurped upon the prerogative of Christ. And he anathematised all those who, having the Episcopal Hierarchy in their power, should refuse to reverence it, and submit themselves to it with the utmost obedience. "If any such shall be found, si qui erunt," says he, "I will readily confess that they are worthy of all anathemas;" evidently declaring that he knew no such persons, and owned none such among his followers. How fatal is the influence of irregular example! Calvin, and the reformers who acted with him, established Presbyterian Government, alleging the impossibility of doing otherwise, without going to the Church of Rome; still, however, expressing the highest respect and reverence for the Episcopal authority. Those who profess to follow these men have departed entirely from their declarations; renouncing the whole order of Episcopacy as a corrupt and injurious" innovation. Indeed, Calvin and his associates had no sufficient excuse; for, although they could not procure Bishops in their own countries, without receiving them from the Romish Church, yet they might have gone to other places for them. And, if this had drawn upon them a more marked and severe persecution, they would have suffered for what they acknowledged as a most important truth. This conduct, then, incorrect in itself, laid the foundation of schism in the Church, which has been regularly producing the most bitter fruits from its origin to the present time. I have said that the Protestant Episcopal Church derives her authority from Christ, through the medium of the Apostles in general, placing them all upon a perfect level with respect to each other. Nor does this circumstance favour the idea of parity; for still there were three orders, our Saviour, while he was on earth, the twelve Apostles, and the seventy Disciples. After the ascension of our Saviour, there were the Apostles, the Elders, and the Deacons : so that, in every period of the Church, distinct orders have existed in her ministry. This remark is made incidentally here. Should circumstances render it proper to pursue the inquiry, this part of the subject shall receive a regular examination. The Episcopal Church, then, professes not to derive particu larly from St. Peter. She ascribes to him no supremacy over the other Apostles. I have been more full, perhaps, than was necessary, on this point; but it appeared to me important to show, at some length, the inaccuracy of such a charge, it being of a nature to operate strongly on the public mind. There is another point of view in which the passage under consideration requires to be placed." Here the Apostle Peter, from whom the Romish and the Protestant Episcopal Church pretend to have derived their authority, calls himself not a Bishop but an Elder, claims no pre-eminence over his brethren." Our author seems here to place Peter upon a perfect level with every Minister existing in the Church; which, indeed, is only fol lowing up the mode of reasoning, from the promiscuous use of names, to its true conclusion. Nevertheless, towards the close of the number, the apostolic office is represented as purely extraordinary. I wish, then, to understand him on this point. Does he maintain that the Apostles had no spiritual jurisdiction over the Clergy in general? Does he maintain that they were upon a perfect level with the Elders of Ephesus, having no more power over those Elders than those Elders had over them? Is he willing explicitly to avow, and decidedly to support this doctrine? I cannot but thus understand him; for he expressly tells us that Peter, addressing the Presbyters, claimed no pre-eminence whatever. And all this, least there should be "lords in God's heritage." This lofty hatred of subordination, ah! how opposite is it to the humility of the gospel; what mischief hath it not operated both in Church and State! If you carry the principle of liberty so far as to make it inconsistent with the existence of a spiritual authority in the Apostles, and their successors the Bishops, over the other orders of the Clergy, you put into the hands of your adversaries a weapon, with which they will very easily demolish the whole order of the Priesthood. The wild plan of rendering every thing common in the Church, giving to any one who imagines himself qualified, the right of preaching, and of administering the ordinances of the gospel, withput an external commission, to the utter destruction of all regular and spiritual authority over the laity, in an order of men set apart for the purpose of officiating in holy things, is to be completely justified by the language of our author; and is, indeed, only pursuing the reasoning of the advocates of parity to its natural conclusion. The whole body of Christians are the heritage of God. And shall there be a distinct set of men invested with authority to lord it over them? This mode of speaking is just as applicable to the power of the Clergy over the laity, as to that superintending authority, with which the Bishops are invested, in relation to the subordinate orders of their brethren. If the idea of distinction and subordination among the Clergy be inconsistent with liberty, why is not the idea of distinction and subordination between the Clergy and laity equally inconsistent ? Are there not distinct orders of civil magistrates in our country; and does this interfere with the rights of the people? Why then should distinct orders among the Clergy, involve any such interference? Our author has no objection to subordinate offices in the state. He thinks it very proper that there should be a chief magistrate of the Union, and chief magistrates of the individual communities. He sees nothing in this, or in the various grades of office, inconsistent with liberty. Why then is the idea of subordination, in the government of the Church, so very odious to him? In opposition to the opinion of our author, I venture to say, that the constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church of this country is more congenial than the Presbyterian system, with its civil institutions. The first, certainly, bears most resemblance to a government composed of distinct branches; the last, to one which concentrates all its authority in a single body. But, this is a sub ordinate consideration. We are to inquire what form of government is prescribed in the scriptures of truth; not what is most suited to the varying institutions of men. And I believe it can be made to appear, that the constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church is equally founded in scripture, and in the nature of the human mind. The apology, founded on two publications that have recently appeared in the city of New-York, shall be particularly considered in my next address. I A Layman of the Episcopal Church. For the Albany Centinel. THE LAYMAN. No. III. PROCEED to consider the charge brought against the Episcopal Church founded, particularly, on two publications that have recently appeared in the city of New-York. Extracts from these publications are introduced in the twelfth number of the MiscelJanies; and in a way calculated, I fear, to excite the passions of the public. I think I have a right to find much fault with the lan guage employed in ushering the works, so severely complained of, into public notice. It is of a nature to kindle indignant feelings, and, of course, to preclude a dispassionate consideration of the case on which our author founds the justification of his present con |